New hearings issued on restitution in Northeast Ohio theft ring

Two career criminals convicted in a multicounty theft ring will get new hearings to determine whether the amount of restitution they were ordered to pay was too high, the 11th District Court of Appeals ruled Monday.

Curtis L. Wilder, 43, of Cleveland, and John Jones, 42, of Bedford Heights, were arrested in March 2012 after hotwiring a car at Mentor's Diamond Center.

They also committed crimes in Willoughby and Wickliffe, among other municipalities, and then sold the parts at a Warrensville Heights chop shop, prosecutors said.

Advertisement

Wilder helped steal seasonal vehicles such as snowplows, four-by-fours, motorcycles, trailers and landscaping equipment in Cuyahoga, Lake and Geauga counties from November 2011 through March 2012.

Wilder pleaded guilty in Lake County Common Pleas Court to engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, grand theft of a motor vehicle, two counts of receiving stolen property and possession of heroin.

Judge Eugene A. Lucci sentenced him to the maximum 66 months in prison and ordered him to pay a $60,550.81 fine, with most of the money going to the victims.

Jones is serving 5 1/2 years in prison after pleading guilty to attempted engaging in a pattern

of corrupt activity, grand theft and two counts of receiving stolen property. Lucci ordered Jones to pay the same restitution as his co-defendant.

Both men appealed the restitution orders, arguing the amount -- three times the gross total loss of one of the victims -- was excessive.

Jones' attorney, Werner Barthol, said he thinks the judge should have limited the amount to $1,000 -- the maximum penalty for a misdemeanor.

"The only thing he pled to regarding that victim was misdemeanor receiving stolen property," Barthol said. "My guy was never linked to stealing those tools. The judge failed to conduct a hearing on the amount. I argued the amount wasn't proven properly."

In a 3-0 opinion, 11th District Judge Timothy P. Cannon noted that the prosecutor initially told the court the state was seeking no restitution for the victim in question, because all his tools and equipment had been recovered.

However, the judge said that victim gave the court a 10-page, itemized listing of equipment and tools that were lost because of the defendant's conduct.

Barthol objected, saying he had not seen the list and could not verify whether it was accurate.

In addition, the appellate judge said the value of the victim's recovered property allowed for only a credit of $2,865.

"In this case ... it is apparent the issue of restitution is unclear at best," Cannon stated. "Under these circumstances, a meaningful hearing should be conducted that would allow appellant to review the itemized list of property and, at a minimum, compare it to what was recovered and what (the victim) originally reported as stolen."